Time to ask for help

[MathBabe]

PartyPoker. $.50/$1 Limit, full tables.

Since the beginning of the month: 4,267 hands.
I'm averaging -2.53 BB/100. Note the negative.

This isn't huge money, of course, but it concerns me. It looks like only about 1/3 of my sessions are winning ones. I don't want to piss away my Intertops bonus playing $1/$2, trying to clear it.

I've been posting a few hand histories here and there, and I can post more. But where should I look to find an overall leak that might be causing this? Is it worth posting PokerTracker stats for you guys to take a look at?

[2Tone]

It seems irresponsible to be advocating that you move up limits if you aren’t beating the 50/1 game, but I do need to point out that the rake at 2/4 is significantly less than 50/1 on a percentage basis. PT will enable you to see how much rake you paid, correct?

It would take some figuring, but being a mathbabe and all, you might want to check out and figure out if the reduced rake percentage at the 2/4 game would account for 2.5BB per 100 hands.

Disclaimer: Of course, never play at a limit higher than you are comfortable at and have the roll to support.

[johnp158]

That's a pretty huge jump. The skill level at 2/4 surely would be enough to negate any rake advantage at this point.

[Aequitas58]

IMO, I don't think the level of skill "difference" is as much as you suggest. Especially at the Bad Beat Jackpot $2/4 tables, the play is incredibly bad.

[Talking Poker]

Post your PT numbers. A screenshot will do.

But I can tell you right now, without even looking at them: you are too passive and you are overplaing weak hands. You need to be raising more on the flop, folding more on the turn, and calling more on the river.

That probably sounds crazy, but I'll bet it's pretty accurate.

Also, keep in mind that 4k hands is nothing. It's enough that most of your PT numbers will be significant.... but the one that won't be is your BB/100.

[Talking Poker]

This may be true, but I think a bigger issue is that if you are losing at $.50/$1, it's likely that you will be losing 4 times as much at $2/$4.

As or the BBJ.... all that does is add to the rake. It doesn't really matter how bad your opponents are if you are playing badly yourself.

[Aequitas58]

nh.

[Aequitas58]

Absolutely.

Do YOU think that john is right, though? Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't think the players at $2/4 are that much better than the $.50/1 players.

[Talking Poker]

I completely agree with you (not that I have ever played $.50/$1 - I started at $1/$2).... but I also don't think MB is ready to move up to that level yet, and that's the most important part of this thread.... If you're a losing player, you may as well limit your losings to the smallest limits available to you until you are winning consistently.

[MathBabe]

I finally found the old "Rip my pt numbers apart" thread that nutbag started last September, where pshabi posted the ideal stats. ()

So here are mine, even though no-one asked: (EDIT: You asked, it just took me an hour to type this... :-) )
VPIP: 17.51% (fine)
PFR: 7.74% (fine)
VPIP from SB: 32.74% (fine)
Saw flop all hands: 22.40% (fine)
WSD: 31.74% (fine)
WSF: 29.55% (fine)
W$SD: 51.15% (fine)
FRB: 31.50% (hm... low???)
AF: Flop 2.31, Turn 1.87, River 1.4; Total 1.18. (Definitely low).
When folds: No fold 11.19%, pre-flop 76.50%, flop 8.74%, turn 2.61%, river .96%.
Win-rate: (We already know it's low.)

I'm surprised that my agression stats are low, since the last time I looked, PokerTracker rated me as "aggressive". I see now that their threshold is 1.5, not 2, though, and clearly I've been slipping.

Okay, now I know what hand histories to look for. I'll also try out that video thing that was mentioned in the same thread, that Rogue23 thought I might be a good candidate for at the time.

[BlibbityBlabbity]

I would say that the play is probably not THAT much better, but you will probably have 1-2 more experienced players at the table and in general have more players that have already moved through two levels of experience to get to the 2/4 level.

I have found that the lowest limit on a site is by far the easiest to beat, as you move up (even from 50/1 --> 1/2) the play tightens "A LITTLE" and you have to be a little more careful.

Mathbabe, if you are losing at 50/1, where you can make a lot of mistakes and still have other peoples more numerous mistakes compensate, then you should use Pokertracker to try to figure it out and FIX whatever is wrong at 50/1 before you move up, IMO.

At 50/1 rake should not even be an issue because you should be winning enough that the worst players at the table will be paying your share as well as their own.

[johnp158]

I realize that the competition at 2/4 is really weak. I guess the point I was trying to make was that it will be a little tougher, and you would never want to move up if you don't know that you're a winning player at a lower limit.

[BrianSwa]

yea I agree play level isnt that good until you reach 5/10 even at 3/6 its bad.

[BrianSwa]

my opinion,

I'm bankrolled for $50 and almost $100 NL but Im sticking to $25 NL for the simple fact that im not ready to put $50 into a pot. Limit on the other hand Iam bankrolled for $1/$2 and have no problem playing there and I also play $2/$4 even though im not completley bankrolled for it im really comfortable there.

Sure bankroll is important and all but I think you being able to play the level comfortably is much more important. Honestly it dosent matter what your end results for that month are! sure you had a bad month oh well. If you arnt comfortable moving up dont move up plain and simple.

[Aequitas58]

I'm under the influence right now, but is the above (bold) correct?

To be correctly bankrolled for $1/2 LHE, you should have a bankroll of $600. (300xbb) To be correctly bankrolled for $100NL, you should have approx $2000. (20x max buyin.) Obv. for $50NL, $1000 is suggested.

[BrianSwa]

I thought it was 10x the buy in for NL? which would be 1,000 which I have. If its 20x then I was incorrect.

[Aequitas58]

You shouldn't sit at any one table w/ more than 5% of your bankroll...

[BrianSwa]

I stand corrected.

[Zybomb]

10x the max buy in is the absolute minimum -- thats usually if you are investigating higher stakes etc... 20x is more comfortable and a better amount

Although I usually stood closer to the 10x rule -- but whatever

[eejit101]

yeah i always went for the 10x rule, and got slated by pshabi and TP for it, so i changed

But most of those stats are fine, i think TP summed it all up way at the top of this thread, overvaluing, then not folding/raising/calling enough on particular streets.

[Talking Poker]

The 5% rule = 20x. You can ake a shot with 10x or go for it with 1x (I see morons do this all the time), but the rule of thimb is still 20x. 5%.

The same goes for limit.... 300x is the rule of thumb. People will go for it with 100x and I've seen people go for it with FIVE BBs... but that's just moronic.

300 big bets for limit. 20 max buy ins for limit.